141–150 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And likewise, are there more initiatives to get men into jobs that are more heavily skewed towards women?
Not as strongly, but there is demand for male nurses - they need stronger people to help move people around, and men are stronger. (biological facts, etc)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Something else? Here's one more thing that might be a confounding factor - taller people have higher salaries [0], and on average men are taller than women. Maybe just a spurious correlation [1], but still interesting to think about. 0: https://www.livescience.com/5552-taller-people-earn-money.ht... 1: http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
I did notice (anecdotal) that people in management are usually taller. Taller than me I might add, and I'm a solid 6'2" (which is like... slightly above average in NL). A lot of people in management are closer to 6'6" (2 meters).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>That seems high to me, from my own experiences. It's almost as if your own individual experiences are not indicative of population-level trends at large
Just a friendly reminder as I noticed you're new - patronising, nonproductive comments like this don't go over as well here as they do on reddit.
The sad reality of the Bay Area is that many engineers would get into trouble for sharing this link at work.
Citation needed. It's a neutrally worded data visualization article, it doesn't even reference IT or the SV drama wrt gender distribution, nor does it pass judgment on the data it presents. (I shared it in my work slack, mind you I don't work in Bay Area and we haven't had trouble with aggressive political correctness etc yet)
Imagine a school shooting happened where you were recently and then some shared an article about the distribution of school shootings around the country on company chat. Just not a good thing to do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Among other things, it was influenced by ~2 million men leaving the civilian labor force temporarily because the government urgently required their services to fight a war. The part would have been disproportionately true for jobs lower down the socioeconomic ladder because jobs higher on the socioeconomic ladder generally go to people who had more ability to licitly or illicitly avoid selection for military service.
The GP was asking if something happened in the 60s/70s, and I believe you are describing the effect of WW2 which happened much earlier
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's damaging to the culture of this site is describing strong gender bias and oppression as "women were given the opportunity to be homemakers instead of laborers." The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the coun…
> The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? It's not wrong, but speaking that way also doesn't foster a nuanced conversation with emotion in check, hence is bad for the site's cu…
As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question:
>>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly?
This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues".
IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer.
> edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.
The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with.
So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important.
In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation.
I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a variety of possible contributing factors, primarily that it was the era of "women's lib", or in full "women's liberation". IOW, "a woman's place is in the home, preferably barefoot and pregnant" began to go out the window. Along with that was the civil rights era, meaning at the least the idea of equality for all. In summary, the U. S. began, even if just a little bit, to pull its head out of its ass with…
> In summary, the U. S. began, even if just a little bit, to pull its head out of its ass with respect to equality and rights. Please watch your tone. Just that your opinion is different from others and happens to currently match the majority view doesn't mean you should be rude to those with different opinions. There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted. edit: To those…
To deconstruct your comment:
>Just that your opinion is different from others and happens to currently match the majority view doesn't mean you should be rude to those with different opinions.
Who is he being rude to? The hypothetical reader who believes all social progress made since 1960 was a mistake and Jim Crow was fine and good?
>There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted.
This isn't saying anything of substance. You are claiming some people have a more detailed opinion on gender equality than "it was bad in 1960/70" and is also not a bigot. This is just patently true... so what point are you trying to make??
So completely bereft of any meaningful contribution, the only thing left is some condescending tone policing. That's why I down-voted you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
School is really societal progress. Many mothers stay at home with very young children, but K-12 is a free babysitter.
We basically implemented public schooling as soon as it was technologically feasible. The main issues were affording teachers, affording your kids to leave the farm, and affording transportation. The cost of books and classrooms was non-trivial for a long time as well.
Wikipedia reads that England had their agricultural revolution in the 16th century and the population boomed to 5.7 million by 1750. [0]
School however: "The Elementary Education Act 1880 insisted on compulsory attendance from 5 to 10 years.[20] For poorer families, ensuring their children attended school proved difficult, as it was more tempting to send them working if the opportunity to earn an extra income was available." [1]
The main issue with public education was that people didn't want it, hence compulsory attendance.
The British Empire ruled the world, and had an industrial revolution - "The Industrial Revolution was the transition to new manufacturing processes in the period from about 1760 to sometime between 1820 and 1840" [2]
Something tells me given the choice to go work in a factory and make money, or go get educated - people chose to go make some money.
None of this had anything to do with technology not allowing the existence of public education - if anyone could afford it, it was the British Empire at the time. They just had other priorities - like bullying the world and trade. The usual capitalist stuff.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture#British...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_Englan...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> at around the 1960s/1970s. >> the U. S. began, even if just a little bit, to pull its head out of its ass with respect to equality and rights > Please watch your tone... There are plenty of people with more nuanced opinions on gender roles that aren't bigoted. But the opinions codified in policy prior to the 1960s/1970s were objectively horrifying . Brown v. Board was decided in 1954. Jim Crow was going strong in…
I agree that most of above is objectively horrifying, but the tone of your post was overly emotional and attracts the kinds who vote based on emotion instead of logic. "the U. S. began... to pull its head out of its ass," is not professional. > there isn't a non-bigoted defense of -- or inappropriate tone for criticizing -- the confluence of those policies. >it was the era of "women's lib", or in full "women's libera…